Pages

20 Feb 2012

The ‘Arab Spring’, or the ‘Great Arab Secularist Disappointment of 2011/2’

I never
liked the term ‘The Arab Spring’. I found it too passive a description with its
connotation of a natural phenomenon that didn’t fully capture the sense of
defiance that characterised the Arab Uprisings of 2011. But in hindsight there
was perhaps something prescient about the ‘Arab Spring’ reflecting the lack of
a sense of control over events that now characterises the frustration and
disappointment felt by secularist Arab supporters of the uprisings. Not for the
first time in their history, Arab leftists and liberals have revealed the same
kind of incompetence and lack of political clarity that have allowed other
parties, such as the Baath, to outmanoeuvre them in the past. This time round
they seem to have reconciled themselves to watching from the sidelines and bemoaning
the ignorance of the Arab masses as the Islamists appear to be gaining the
upper hand. This would be a premature declaration of defeat.

An important
point to remember is that the Islamists did not spark the Arab Uprisings. When
it became clear in places like Egypt and Tunisia that Islamists had significant
popular majorities following electoral victories, the response of Arab liberals/leftists
ranged from bitter admonition of the masses to accusations of fraud and
external funding by the Gulf states. Self-critique hardly featured. Furthermore,
little did they make of the fact that Islamists hadn’t mobilised their wide
support base to challenge the autocracies in power, preferring to coexist with
the established orders for decades while carving a space for themselves and
their followers. While the Islamists didn’t start the uprisings, they have
mobilised to reap the benefits of their aftermath and they have proved
themselves to be far better at connecting with the people than leftists and
liberals.

It is this last
point that more than anything explains the failure of secularist Arabs to
capitalise on the uprisings to push for wider reforms and mount serious attempts
at taking power. It became clear from the beginning that Arab secularists are
far more skilled at speaking to the international media than to their
countrymen and women. While celebrity activists were busy collecting awards in
European capitals, parties like the Muslim Brotherhood and Nour Party in Egypt
were mobilising in preparation for the elections. As the established Islamist
parties were preparing themselves to deal with the new realities, Arab
secularists failed to produce a single legitimate political body that could
represent the demands of the uprisings.

This disconnect
between the secularist elites and the Arab masses is clearly illustrated in
their patronising attitude. They constantly speak of ‘education’ and ‘raising
awareness’, the preferred tools for social engineering they like to borrow from
western liberal democracies. Rather than addressing the real political and
economic challenges through ambitious programmes that could gain them popular
support, they persist in alienating their audiences with superficial initiatives
that rarely address the reality of peoples’ lives. They continue to pour so
much time an energy into insignificant initiatives, like getting Twitter
trending topics or harebrained publicity stunts like flash-mobs in western
capitals, as if this is the culmination of political struggle. They would
rather win the battle for victimhood status in western media rather than
connecting with a genuine popular support base at home.

Now that
the euphoria of the early months of the uprisings seems to be giving way to
disappointment, many have taken to publicly revealing their scepticism. The ‘I
told you so’s’ smugly point to the error of expecting too much from the Arab
masses. I personally remain unrepentant in
my support for the uprisings, if there is a missed opportunity it’s one that we
have complacently allowed to happen because of our lack of focus and political
clarity. Furthermore, blaming the masses for not ‘getting us’ is a recipe for self-exile.

30 comments:

"Islamists hadn’t mobilised their wide support base to challenge the autocracies in power, preferring to coexist with the established orders for decades while carving a space for themselves and their followers"

This article should be awarded a medal for utter ignorance in history, or the lamest bitter bias.

You're entitled to your opinion, but the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan for example had been tamed until last year and were content to make an occasional noise and run for elections in a limited capacity. Similarly, several other Islamist groups across the Arab World, in fact since the Algerian civil war there has been hardly any significant Islamist attempt to overthrow a regime. Show me otherwise.

Seriously?!! Man, anybody who reads a little history knows that the MB where almost the only party suffering from the brutal regime: Imprisonment, torture, political exile, and terrorist ban from participating in elections! Heck, they were even a "banned" political party!

Look at tunisia, the PM was imprisoned for 16 years, 10 years in a private cell for publishing anti-regime articles. I suggest you read about Isam Al Aryan of Egypt, Hamadi Al Jabali of Tunisia. I was really looking forward to read something objective, but I guess it is "Great Arab Disappointment" after all.

I'm not denying for a moment that the MB was persecuted, but for a 'banned' party, they had a significant number of MPs in the last elections under Mubarak, and they were reaching an understanding that would have allowed them more. They were not, however, 'almost the only party suffering', it's very convenient for Islamists to forget the persecution of communists not only in Egypt but across the Arab world, like Iraq for example. As for objectivity, I am being harsher on secularists than on Islamists, it's clear from the article. I don't quite understand why you are reading it like a major attack on Islamists.

"they had a significant number of MPs in the last elections under Mubarak". Karl, can you please tell me what was the percentage they had? Did you read about the regime's amendment to the constitution of 2007, and how MB reacted? Many facts are missing here..

But even you would agree (I guess) that an uprising that starts with Islamic undertones would be quickly crushed and not given the sympathetic media attention than the Arab Spring had - it's a lot more difficult to crush an uprising that demanded 'freedom' and 'liberty' as the secularists (as you claim) have done recently.

Think of Algeria, a legitimate victory by Islamically orientated party, which was then removed - all in a fair election too.

And that ratio you mention doesn't just exist in the Arab world but elsewhere too - and still the change does not occur. I wonder what the people of North Korea are wondering?

The way I see it, if you believe in certain ideas you use them to advance your cause not hide behind other slogans/ideas. You have to admit that Islamists diluting their Islamist discourse is a form of retreat. What does the media matter? What matters is your ability to mobilize your people and challenge authority. Think of Algerian War of Independence, Vietnam, etc, etc. They were fighting against pretty tough odds and didn't rely on the outside world and the media to save them.

The example of N Korea is not appropriate, there's hardly an organized opposition there, nothing like the 70% that Islamists have in Egypt and at a high state of mobilization.

I'm reading the article again, and I think I was quite critical of secularists. I didn't specifically say that they started the uprisings, but neither did the Islamists.

The idea here is that EVEN if you mobilize people for a cause, you will be crushed if you are an Islamist. They are not diluting the Islamic discourse, but the fear of radical Islam is far too great to gain any support from any country in the world or the media. So: NO, mobilizing people alone is not the only thing.You are comparing fighting an aggressor to changing a national regime! Very inaccurate analogy there.. I know they didn't start it, but you don't have the courage and objectivity to say they are the most who offered sacrifices where everybody else was sun bathing at Sharam El Shekh.

Again you are trying to win victimhood points by showing Islamists as martyrs, or more of martyrs than others. This is what I was criticizing secularists for. If you don't like comparing with an aggressor, compare with the French or Russian revolutions were regimes were much more brutal. Yet, they succeeded.

As for fear of radical Islam, it didn't seem to stop the West from supporting rebels in Libya or now in Syria. You can't square that point.

So you're saying MB should have made a revolution that would be labeled by all media as: Radical Islamists trying to overrule a secular regime, help Hamas in Gaza, and pose a national threat to Israel. Such a revolution would've definitely worked. Argument seems Legit.

I'm not saying they should have done anything, they can work out for themselves what to do. But it appears to me to be more honest to stick to your principles and try to promote your vision than to dilute your ideas and hope that things will turn your way by themselves. This is a critique of many parties, not only the MB. But nobody could mobilize as many people as the MB.

And why do you care about the media so much? The media isn't what decides.

Besides, Karl, even if the outcome is not yet what you want, it is clear that things have moved on a lot since before the 'Spring'. If the Muslim Brotherhood got the seats that's because they have a greater organisational infrastructure to take advantage of the unrest. Now that the Freedom and Justice Party has the most seats, they can be held to account for what the do, and what they fail to do.

James, that's precisely my point. Secularists can't turn this into a lament, a political dynamic has been created and they need to work with this new reality. What won't help is their aloofness and detachment. It's a call to arms, of sorts.

>>Karl says: You have to admit that Islamists diluting their Islamist discourse is a form of retreat.

Is it? And so the Left's move towards the centre is also a dilution? It is in a way - but that's what wins you votes and attention. It's not selling out (except if you're New Labour!), but responding to the moderate sympathies of the masses with what they share/have in common with the the ideology of the party. The Left's continual defeats should have taught you that by now, Karl.

>> Karl says: "Again you are trying to win victimhood points by showing Islamists as martyrs, or more of martyrs than others."

That's clearly wrong. What Ahmad is saying is that any Islamically inspired uprising would be crushed - even legitimately: Algeria, for example. (Other examples in the past include Mauritania, Morocco and more).

Of course the left's move towards 'the center' is a dilution, and it's not the center, it's a space void of political ideas. It's a big sellout and an abandoning of ideals. It has nothing to do with what the masses want, the left in government has become more authoritarian and less tolerant. Everything from freedom of speech to due process suffered. But of course depends what you mean by left.

You both contradict yourself with 'an Islamic uprising would be crushed' logic, as if the rulers would be more tolerant of a non-Islamic uprising. They will do whatever they can to stay in power, regardless of the opponent. You have to come to terms with the idea that Islamists (generally) had arrived at a position where they weren't challenging for power. There are many excuses/reasons, but that is a fact.

many comments are missing the point.. this is a secularist voice expressing the need to self-criticism and admitting own mistakes, a practice most of us arabs refuse in favor of playing hero, victim or irreproachable. self-criticism is good. MB and others should try it sometime..

I'm not even sure if this is the case or not but it seems to me, certainly in Egypt, that regrettably the liberals and left wingers are usually upper middle class. I don't like to make it a question of class politics but I have generally observed that the educated elites favor more liberal politics whilst the poorer 'masses' feel that the Islamists represent them more. I know this is a very simplistic view and has a lot of holes in it. What do you think regarding this point? It seems that liberal politics have failed most people in the Arab world and that may be why the turn to Islam as a solution.

You are right, it's partially a class question, and I alluded to that in the post. But I don't think we could say liberal politics have failed in the Arab world, because they haven't been tried really. The post is an invitation for the elites to overcome this divide and start building themselves as broad grassroots movements that can speak to the aspiration of the people.

I don't know where I stated that if you start a revolution then you win the elections. The critique is meant to highlight a disconnect that prevented secularists from carrying over the momentum of the revolution and translating into political gains. It might take 30 years as you state, but we can have the debate now surely, rather than wait for those 30 years to elapse. I'm betting that a serious party with economic vision can defeat al-Nour party and its silly agenda.

Well, exactly, the left should do all of the above, and liberals should do the same, and in many ways there are many people already engaged in this process, particularly in Egypt. That doesn't contradict any of the points I made, on the contrary it's in the spirit of the critical approach I am talking about.

I am not talking about abstract political programs but about ideas that would highlight what the economy would look like, how Egyptians can benefit from it, how Egypt should be ran and administered, etc. In other words, the stuff of politics. And I am not only talking about Egypt, but broadly about Arab countries.

I didn't say the disappointment was the election results, I think you misread that. The disappointment is the set of expectations from the Arab Uprisings and, once again, this article wasn't about Egypt only. But, as you say, it would be a disappointment to get the same results in coming elections.

You've just written my next post for me. The left in Lebanon deserves more critique than in other Arab countries. It has more freedom to act than other Arab leftists, but insists on closing itself down and not taking advantage of the relative freedom to act. It's dismissive of the democratic process and cannot offer a single competent candidate, leaving the space empty for confessional parties to continue their domination uncontested. There is real hunger for change in Lebanon, but the left spends its energy on fragmented initiatives that have no impact. And mainly, the left has not built a grassroots movement and it exists in tiny isolated pockets. I could go on...